The soul is a tricky thing to fully describe, isn’t it? It exists in a realm beyond ours, on an entirely different plane of existence. Yet it influences our daily actions in many more ways than one. The way you interact with the world can be traced, almost directly, to your soul. Part of you exists as just a reflection of something that is out of your control. This isn’t to say that you lack agency; it’s just influenced heavily by the spiritual predisposition of your soul, regardless of outside mediators. It might help to imagine a world full of magnifying lenses. Everybody has one, but all the shapes are different. Thus, everyone views the world in a slightly different manner.
It is impossible to describe, at any level, the totality of the soul. Then why go to such lengths at all? Rather than trying to work with the sum of all those lenses, I propose generalizing just one. I find it far more practical and intriguing to identify one aspect of the soul’s nature and expound upon it. One such method involves what I call ‘conceptual embodiment’. It is a very abstract way of thinking, even meta-abstract. The irony is that it's very simple on the surface: on paper, it’s just a string of words that have some vague interrelated meaning. In the mind, however, it transforms into an unchained, intellectual monster.
It’s something I’ve been experimenting with for a while now. To wrestle with the nature of something so inherently complex by applying my own rules to a simulated reality, theoretically creating entirely new ontological states. It’s more of a layered thought construct. I believe that it is through the implications of those thoughts that we approach some sense of the true nature of the soul. They are a set of rules that wouldn’t make sense anywhere else...
Allow me, then, to cease my babbling and get down to the metaphysics of it. Like I’ve said, we all view the effects of the nature of the soul in different ways. For example, there are many different explanations for déjà vu. There are many reasons people have as to why soulmates exist, or why others radiate an energy that seems…displaced. My explanation is simple, but its implications (it’s always the implications) are all-encompassing and frankly, downright horrifying.
The soul does not experience time in the same fashion as you and I. It also does not experience the concept of “place” the same way you and I do. “Its” perception of our world is wholly different from the conventional, and as such, that perception, through conceptual embodiment, can be manipulated and flawed to distort our own…or others. Mind you, this is just an aspect, one facet upon the uncountable infinity that is the soul. In theory, you can conceptually embody anything; the harder the concept, or the more abstract, the greater the risk, and the greater the reward.
I feel that it is paramount to lay down the backbone of this thought concept. I now present a more grounded approach: epistemology. (If anyone wants to jump ship, now is an appropriate time to do so.) Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that deals with knowing things as opposed to believing things—or vice versa? Apply that to our conceptual embodiment of the soul’s perception, which then becomes our own perception, ultimately allowing us to simulate or embody consequences that lie outside our normal plane. (Seriously, no judgment if you do.)
Now that we’ve achieved some sort of common ground, it is now, and with great honor, that we must indulge in the full expansion. Again, I must stress to you that this is only an aspect of the soul, an application of one way of looking at things, and yet it still encompasses so many things. (I remember faintly saying at one point I’d cease my babbling…) To internalize this thought in its entirety is dangerous, and thus, it is only presented as something to muse over. If you should be so inclined as to probe further…go ahead, and I’ll go with you.
I shall present a “simple” (you know now as well as I that this will be anything but) scenario, and then outline the implications of said conceptual embodiment, fully actualized. Let us consider object ‘O’. Be it a car, a plane, or someone’s dog, it exists merely as O. Let us then consider two observers, A and B, A being the observer capable of warping a local perception. Take note: this is a local perception shift; if it were global, whatever A’s effect was, people outside our scope of interest would also be affected. Therefore, for introductory and exploratory purposes, we shall consider local effects only. That being said, the goal of this overall observation (you and I having knowledge of both A's and B’s mental states, both real and perceived) is to observe the intended effect on B, and the consequences of making that effect true. Those consequences, of course, are what O’s state is, what it’s “supposed” to be, and where or what it is now.
As you can now see, applying this level of embodiment can even affect ontology itself, locally and globally. Which is exactly why I’ve hinted at the dangers of full actualization. The more you ponder this, the more the act of pondering itself will force you to grapple with changes in your reality that shouldn’t be. Yet they are, or at least you perceive them to be.
Let us finally enter the simulation and fully immerse ourselves in its wonderful terror. O exists, first of all, in a global state of “true”, where true equates to existing regardless of perception, manipulated or not, and false equates to its opposite, naturally. A and B both exist; otherwise, that would create problems I fear would only complicate matters (this is meant to be introductory). A then decides to muck about and actualize certain perception warps. It is imperative that we remember this at all times: the epistemological state of both A and B will be called into question, because what they think they know is subject to change. That can be for good or for worse. Consider the following:
As aforementioned, O exists in a true state. A and B are aware of O’s existence. However, in this instance, B is not aware of A’s intention to perform a local shift on O. B is also unaware of the intended effect of A’s shift on O, which subsequently becomes a shift on B’s perception. Say, for instance, that A shifts O, such that O exists in a false state. We could diverge and study the implications of that in and of itself, as to how that shift occurred and why A is aware of both states, that being just outside the scope of this overview. That being said, A is aware of O’s original state as well as O’s new state. B, who was unaware of A’s intention, now perceives O in its new state, which is a globally false one. Now you might ask: what’s the issue? And you’d be correct. There isn’t one. As long as B does not know A’s original intention before the shift is applied, B will simply always believe that O never existed.
It is now also apparent that who knows what and when is key; these implications are highly sensitive to the order in which the shifts are applied, as well as local knowledge of the shifts. Allow me to demonstrate:
Consider a situation where B is now aware of A’s intention to shift O, but is still unaware of the intended effect of A’s shift. This time, when A shifts O’s global state to false, B now faces a dilemma. B’s perception of O is that it does not exist, and yet, by possessing the knowledge that A performed a shift, it brings into question whether O really does not exist. If O does not exist, why would A need to shift at all? Thus, B’s perception is internally invalidated due to this paradox. Thus, it entails that B doesn’t know where O truly is at all simply by virtue of contradiction. This also brings into question how B became aware of A’s intention to shift. If A tells B that A plans to shift O, then that is fairly simple. However, if B knows that A will shift O, or has shifted O, then what was O’s original state, and how does B's perceived state interact with that? The contradictions that arise from that interplay are devastating for B. It is at this point that you must grasp the true power that A and those who fully realize the potential of this concept possess.
All of that, merely a glimpse into the world that lies beyond reason, governed only by higher-order logic. To take a concept as simple as what you view with your own two eyes, turn it into a metaphysical weapon. The systems that underlie these mechanics go far more in-depth than one could hope to imagine, and yet, they must be a byproduct of that imagination. Let the mind wander freely, under the guidance of the soul, which does not conform to normal boundaries–and you will stumble across expanses wholly unknown. It will either shape you or break you.
It is impossible to describe, at any level, the totality of the soul. Then why go to such lengths at all? Rather than trying to work with the sum of all those lenses, I propose generalizing just one. I find it far more practical and intriguing to identify one aspect of the soul’s nature and expound upon it. One such method involves what I call ‘conceptual embodiment’. It is a very abstract way of thinking, even meta-abstract. The irony is that it's very simple on the surface: on paper, it’s just a string of words that have some vague interrelated meaning. In the mind, however, it transforms into an unchained, intellectual monster.
It’s something I’ve been experimenting with for a while now. To wrestle with the nature of something so inherently complex by applying my own rules to a simulated reality, theoretically creating entirely new ontological states. It’s more of a layered thought construct. I believe that it is through the implications of those thoughts that we approach some sense of the true nature of the soul. They are a set of rules that wouldn’t make sense anywhere else...
Allow me, then, to cease my babbling and get down to the metaphysics of it. Like I’ve said, we all view the effects of the nature of the soul in different ways. For example, there are many different explanations for déjà vu. There are many reasons people have as to why soulmates exist, or why others radiate an energy that seems…displaced. My explanation is simple, but its implications (it’s always the implications) are all-encompassing and frankly, downright horrifying.
The soul does not experience time in the same fashion as you and I. It also does not experience the concept of “place” the same way you and I do. “Its” perception of our world is wholly different from the conventional, and as such, that perception, through conceptual embodiment, can be manipulated and flawed to distort our own…or others. Mind you, this is just an aspect, one facet upon the uncountable infinity that is the soul. In theory, you can conceptually embody anything; the harder the concept, or the more abstract, the greater the risk, and the greater the reward.
I feel that it is paramount to lay down the backbone of this thought concept. I now present a more grounded approach: epistemology. (If anyone wants to jump ship, now is an appropriate time to do so.) Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that deals with knowing things as opposed to believing things—or vice versa? Apply that to our conceptual embodiment of the soul’s perception, which then becomes our own perception, ultimately allowing us to simulate or embody consequences that lie outside our normal plane. (Seriously, no judgment if you do.)
Now that we’ve achieved some sort of common ground, it is now, and with great honor, that we must indulge in the full expansion. Again, I must stress to you that this is only an aspect of the soul, an application of one way of looking at things, and yet it still encompasses so many things. (I remember faintly saying at one point I’d cease my babbling…) To internalize this thought in its entirety is dangerous, and thus, it is only presented as something to muse over. If you should be so inclined as to probe further…go ahead, and I’ll go with you.
I shall present a “simple” (you know now as well as I that this will be anything but) scenario, and then outline the implications of said conceptual embodiment, fully actualized. Let us consider object ‘O’. Be it a car, a plane, or someone’s dog, it exists merely as O. Let us then consider two observers, A and B, A being the observer capable of warping a local perception. Take note: this is a local perception shift; if it were global, whatever A’s effect was, people outside our scope of interest would also be affected. Therefore, for introductory and exploratory purposes, we shall consider local effects only. That being said, the goal of this overall observation (you and I having knowledge of both A's and B’s mental states, both real and perceived) is to observe the intended effect on B, and the consequences of making that effect true. Those consequences, of course, are what O’s state is, what it’s “supposed” to be, and where or what it is now.
As you can now see, applying this level of embodiment can even affect ontology itself, locally and globally. Which is exactly why I’ve hinted at the dangers of full actualization. The more you ponder this, the more the act of pondering itself will force you to grapple with changes in your reality that shouldn’t be. Yet they are, or at least you perceive them to be.
Let us finally enter the simulation and fully immerse ourselves in its wonderful terror. O exists, first of all, in a global state of “true”, where true equates to existing regardless of perception, manipulated or not, and false equates to its opposite, naturally. A and B both exist; otherwise, that would create problems I fear would only complicate matters (this is meant to be introductory). A then decides to muck about and actualize certain perception warps. It is imperative that we remember this at all times: the epistemological state of both A and B will be called into question, because what they think they know is subject to change. That can be for good or for worse. Consider the following:
As aforementioned, O exists in a true state. A and B are aware of O’s existence. However, in this instance, B is not aware of A’s intention to perform a local shift on O. B is also unaware of the intended effect of A’s shift on O, which subsequently becomes a shift on B’s perception. Say, for instance, that A shifts O, such that O exists in a false state. We could diverge and study the implications of that in and of itself, as to how that shift occurred and why A is aware of both states, that being just outside the scope of this overview. That being said, A is aware of O’s original state as well as O’s new state. B, who was unaware of A’s intention, now perceives O in its new state, which is a globally false one. Now you might ask: what’s the issue? And you’d be correct. There isn’t one. As long as B does not know A’s original intention before the shift is applied, B will simply always believe that O never existed.
It is now also apparent that who knows what and when is key; these implications are highly sensitive to the order in which the shifts are applied, as well as local knowledge of the shifts. Allow me to demonstrate:
Consider a situation where B is now aware of A’s intention to shift O, but is still unaware of the intended effect of A’s shift. This time, when A shifts O’s global state to false, B now faces a dilemma. B’s perception of O is that it does not exist, and yet, by possessing the knowledge that A performed a shift, it brings into question whether O really does not exist. If O does not exist, why would A need to shift at all? Thus, B’s perception is internally invalidated due to this paradox. Thus, it entails that B doesn’t know where O truly is at all simply by virtue of contradiction. This also brings into question how B became aware of A’s intention to shift. If A tells B that A plans to shift O, then that is fairly simple. However, if B knows that A will shift O, or has shifted O, then what was O’s original state, and how does B's perceived state interact with that? The contradictions that arise from that interplay are devastating for B. It is at this point that you must grasp the true power that A and those who fully realize the potential of this concept possess.
All of that, merely a glimpse into the world that lies beyond reason, governed only by higher-order logic. To take a concept as simple as what you view with your own two eyes, turn it into a metaphysical weapon. The systems that underlie these mechanics go far more in-depth than one could hope to imagine, and yet, they must be a byproduct of that imagination. Let the mind wander freely, under the guidance of the soul, which does not conform to normal boundaries–and you will stumble across expanses wholly unknown. It will either shape you or break you.
